BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 171, 21 July 1928, Page 15

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

CRITICISM OP SUNDAY'S MEETING. REPLY FROM CANON JAMES. Wo have received the following letter from Canon James: — Reiving on your sense of justice and tan play, I am sure that you will give me an adequate opportunity of replying to your criticism of my address in the Town Hall last Sunday on the Bible-in-schools question. The fact that the Bihlp-in Schools League co-operated with the Auckland District Orange Lodge in this demonstration needs no apoloprv from nie or from anyone else. T am not an Orangeman; but the Orangemen arc fellow-citizens, and I gladlv a\ ailed myself of the opportunity of speaking to them, as I would address an\ other lawful organisation or group of loyal citizens. \ou assert that the Orangeman cannot "be considered as impartial and unbiased in their dealings with the Woman Catholic Church." The relevance of this statement is "''far from clear. Does the 'Star" suggest that only impartial and unbiased people should be permitted to vctte? So far as religion and politics are concerned, it would be hard to find many unbiased and impartial people. Is the "Star" unbiased in its criticism of the Reform Party, or is it impartial and unbiased in its dealings with the Bible-in-Schools League? Of course not—nor does anvone expect it to be.

If the fact that the Biblc-in-Schools League has publicly associated itself with the Orange Lodges forfeits any claim the league "over possessed to be regarded as non-sectarian," then the fact that the "Star" has associated itself with the Roman Caliolics, secularists and rationalists, forfeits any claim the "Star" ever possessed to be regarded as a non-sectarian newspaper. It is a significant fact that the president of the Rationalist Association is also president of the State Education Defence League.

The "Star" protests against the assertion that the Religious Exercises Bill has been blocked by the machinations of "the Roman Catholics and their allies." But surely it is quite obvious that the bill would have been passed witliou' difficulty, if it had not been desperately opposed by "the Roman Catholics and their allies"—the "allies" being the rationalists, .the secularists, the Auckland "Star," and the "Truth Seeker" (the organ of the Rationalist Association). If the bill has not been blocked by these people, who has blocked it?

I did not say last Sunday, nor have I ever said that "the whole of the opposition to the Bible-in-SHiools League is based on sympathy for the Roman Catholic Church." but 1 assert most emphatically that the provision for prayer and Bible reading contained in the Education Bill of 1877 was struck out in the vain hope of placating the Roman Catholics, and that the threats and appeals of the Roman authorities and the votes of Roman Catholics have been mainly responsible for the continued exclusion of the Bible from our national schools. It is quite certain that if the Roman opposition ceased, the rationalists and secularists would be powerless to prevent the passing of the Religious Exercises Bill.

The "Star's" assertion that the admission of the Bible into our State schools would promote sectarianism is flatly contradicted by actual experience in Britain, Queensland, New South Wales, West Australia, Canada, and other parts of the Empire. I deny your statement that "the teachers themselves have declared against the introduction of Bible teaching." Against this we have the evidence of the Director of Education, Mr. T. B. Strong, given before the Education Committee in the House of Representatives last October. "My opinion is that, although some of the present leaders in the New Zealand Educational Institute are vigorous opponents of the Bible-n-schools measure, the great body of teachers are not opposed to the bill. I may remind you that a resolution in support of Bible reading in schools was actually passed at one annual meeting of the institute, though by a very narrow majority. The arguments against the proposal have again and again been placed before the teachers in a most vigorous manner, and every ancient bogy that could be raised has been raised and made the most of." You state that your opposition to Bible reading is shared by "thousands who have no connection with the Roman Catholic Church," and you assert that it is impossible for 14 per cent, of the people to thwart the desire of the other 86 per cent. Now, if it is true, as you suggest, that the majority of the people of New Zealand are opposed to the Religious Exercises Bill, you need have no hesitation in joining with us in asking the Government to settle this matter by means of a referendum poll. As a liberal and democratic journal, you must agree that the Bible-in-schools question should be settled in accordance with the will of the people. The people of New Zealand are the jury. Everything that can be said, for a*d against, has now been said. Why not let the case now go to the jury, and get the verdict? Will you help us to induce the Government to give the people an opportunity of declaring their will in a direct and unmistakable way? We are ready to trust the people. Are you? [In 192fi the New Zealand Educational Institute in conference opposed the proposals embodied in the Religious Exercises Bill, by 57 votes to 19. Last year the , conference unanimously reaffirmed this opposition. We dislike the referendum on principle. It is a rudimentary method of gauging public opinion, which, as the outcome of social and political evolution, has been almost entirely superseded by representative government. Resort to the referendum is therefore a retrograde step. Its use is less objectionable in clear cut issues than in complex, but we do not class the Bible-in-schools question in the former category.—Editor.]